ML18088B087

Official Transcript of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program Public Meeting Friday, March 23, 2018, Phoenix, Arizona

ML18088B087
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/23/2018
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
MHeath NMSS/DUWP/LLWB 415.3137 T5A08
References
NRC-3599
Download: ML18088B087 (93)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Low-level Radioactive Waste Program Public Meeting Docket Number:

(n/a)

Location:

Phoenix, Arizona Date:

Friday, March 23, 2018 Work Order No.:

NRC-3599 Pages 1-91 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAM

+ + + + +

PUBLIC MEETING

+ + + + +

FRIDAY MARCH 23, 2018

+ + + + +

The public meeting met in Room 211A, Phoenix Convention Center, 100 N. 3rd Street, Phoenix, Arizona, at 9:00 a.m., Richard Barkley, Meeting Facilitator, presiding.

PRESENT:

RICHARD BARKLEY, Region I, NRC, Meeting Facilitator MARIA ARRIBAS-COLON, Acting Chief, NMSS/DUWP/LLWB, NRC BOBY ABU-EID, NMSS, NRC MARC DAPAS, Director, NMSS, NRC STEPHEN DEMBEK, NMSS/DUWP, NRC KELLEE JAMERSON, Project Manager, NMSS/DUWP/LLWB, NRC CHRIS MCKENNEY, Chief, Performance Assessment Branch, NMSS/DUWP, NRC

2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 GREGORY SUBER, NRR, NRC ALSO PRESENT:

LARRY BERAN, Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center ROB BLACK, Battelle Energy Alliance FRAZIER BRONSON, Mirion Technologies GERD BRUHN, GRS LARRY CAMPER, Advoco Professional Services, LLC CHAUMEIX NABIHA, CNRS GARY DOOLEN, Los Alamos National Laboratory CAMILLE ESPIVENT, IRSN STEVEN FLANIKEN, Hazen Research, Inc.

BARBARA FREUND, BMUB SONNY GOLDSTON, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

HANS HONERLAH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MIRIAM JUCKETT, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses THOMAS KALINOWSKI, DW James Consulting ASHOK KAPOOR, U.S. Department of Energy SCOTT KIRK, Savannah River Remediation THERESA KLICZEWSKI, U.S. Department of Energy ALLAN LEE, Taiwan Power Company MARK LEWIS, EnergySolutions TODD LOVINGER, LLW Forum BETSY MADRU, Waste Control Specialists, LLC

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CHARLES MAGUIRE, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality JUSTIN MARBLE, U.S. Department of Energy WILLIAM MASON, AWE KYLE MOONEY, Idaho National Laboratory TOM PEAKE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DAVID PICKETT, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses CHHANDA SAMANTA, Virginia Military Institute ROGER SEITZ, Savannah River National Laboratory MARK SENDERLING, U.S. Department of Energy CHRIS SHAW, Waste Control Specialists, LLC DAN SHRUM, EnergySolutions GARRETT SMITH, U.S. Department of Energy REBECCA STOHR, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office JOHN TAUXE, Neptune and Company BILL WILMARTH, Savannah River National Laboratory DIANE DARRIGO, Nuclear Information Resource Services*

IAN IRVING, NRC*

PHIL KLEVORICK, Clark County, Nevada*

BRUCE BIWER*

JOHN CONLY*

KAY CUMBOW*

4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 HARRY FELSHER, NRC*

THOMAS MAGETTE, Talisman*

CARDELIA MAUPIN, NRC*

KATRINA MCMURRIAN*

JOHN MITCHELL*

MARTIN ONEILL*

JANET SCHLUETER, NEI*

DAN SCHULTHEISZ, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

ANDREW TACHOVSKY*

JOHN TAPPERT, NRC*

JAMES CROWSON*

DON LOWMAN, NRC*

LISA MATIS*

NEIL SHEEHAN, NRC*

ELIZABETH ZIMMER-LLOYD*

• PARTICIPATED VIA TELECONFERENCE AND/OR WEBINAR

5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 TABLE OF CONTENTS Opening Remarks....................................5 NRC Welcome.......................................7 Low-Level Waste Program Overview..................11 Greater Than Class C Waste........................36 Break.............................................66 Very Low-Level Waste Scoping Study................67 Closing Remarks...................................89 Adjourn...........................................91

6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

9:00 a.m.

2 MR. BARKLEY: All right, if we can get 3

started, please? Can everybody hear me in the back 4

okay?

5 My name is Richard Barkley, I'm the 6

meeting facilitator for this meeting. I'm actually 7

from the Region I office. I'm not affiliated with the 8

NMSS organization at all.

9 The NMSS staff here today has an overview 10 and two presentations to make to you today. After 11 each of the two presentations, I'll open the floor up 12 to questions, and I'll go and call on probably half a 13 dozen people from the room.

14 And then, I'll move to the webinar and 15 then come back to the room, depending on how many 16 questions I see in the room itself. Okay?

17 I would ask that you keep your remarks 18 concise. There's a number of people here to speak, 19 and so, we do have somewhat of a limited amount of 20 time.

21 I am a very flexible facilitator, but I 22 need to try to constrain remarks a bit to be concise 23 so everybody has a chance to speak.

24 I would ask that, since this meeting is 25

7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 being recorded, the first thing you do is speak up and 1

say your name because the individual in the back needs 2

to be able to record your name. And, after he records 3

it, it'll eventually later be transcribed. Okay?

4 The staff will be available after the 5

meeting in case you do have questions and we don't get 6

to all your questions. And, this is, by all means, 7

not the only way you can provide comments on these 8

subjects.

9 I would ask that you be respectful to the 10 individuals when they're speaking and not interrupt 11 them as we go through. And, I'd appreciate your 12 cooperation in that matter.

13 If you have any questions, I'll be roaming 14 around the room. Please come see me privately and I 15 will be glad to address them.

16 Do we have any questions at this time 17 about the format of the meeting?

18 (NO RESPONSE) 19 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, with that, what I'd 20 like to first do it have Cedric on the bridge speak a 21 little bit about the operation of the phone bridge so 22 our attendees on the phone bridge understand how this 23 will work.

24 Cedric, can you speak up for a minute.

25

8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 OPERATOR: Yes, as a reminder, if you'd 1

like to ask a question from the phone lines, please 2

press star then one. Please remember to unmute your 3

line and record your name clearly when prompted.

4 If you'd like to withdraw that questions, 5

you may press star two.

6 Once again, if you'd like to ask a 7

question from the phone lines, please press star then 8

one.

9 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, thank you.

10 With that, I believe Marc Dapas, the 11 Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 12 Safeguards would like to speak to you.

13 MR. DAPAS: Thank you.

14 Well, good morning, everyone, and I want 15 to thank you for being here this morning to engage in 16 what I hope are some meaningful discussions on a 17 couple of very important topics.

18 You know, I woke up this morning and was 19 looking at the latest news and saw that the Senate did 20 pass this morning a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending 21 bill. The House had voted on that bill Thursday 22 evening.

23 And, I saw that President Trump has 24 indicated in a tweet that he may veto the bill because 25

9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 it doesn't address the DACA issue, and of course, 1

provides sufficient funding for a wall in Mexico.

2 My point being, not clear to me whether 3

this may be the last official activity I'm involved in 4

before the government shuts down at midnight.

5 (LAUGHTER) 6 MR. DAPAS: But, let's hope not.

7 We consider public involvement in our 8

activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair 9

regulation of the nuclear industry. Openness is one 10 of the NRC's principles of good regulation.

11 And, we recognize the public's interest in 12 the regulation of nuclear activities and we provide 13 opportunities for stakeholders to be heard.

14 For that reason, we are committed to 15 providing opportunities for meaningful public input 16 and to participate in our decision making process.

17 The topics that we will be presenting this 18 morning are of great interest. We plan to provide 19 presentations on -- they're of great interest, of 20 course, to the waste management industry, our public 21 stakeholders and federal agencies.

22 And so, we plan to provide presentations 23 on the overview of the NRC's low-level radioactive 24 waste program, the very low-level waste scoping study 25

10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that we are conducting and greater than Class C and 1

transuranic waste disposal.

2 As directed by the Commission, we are 3

developing a regulatory basis for the disposal of 4

greater than Class C and transuranic radioactive waste 5

through means other than deep geologic disposal.

6 We are tasked with providing that 7

Commission directed deliverable six months after we 8

publish the proposed supplemental rule on Part 61.

9 We're not submitting that -- our proposed 10 regulatory basis for approval. But, of course, the 11 Commission could turn that into a vote paper if they 12 consider that to be a policy matter.

13 But, we are planning to forward that 14 regulatory basis in a Commission information paper.

15 In addition, we initiated the very low-16 level waste scoping study to identify possible options 17 to improve and strengthen our regulatory framework for 18 that type of waste disposal.

19 On February 22nd, we held a similar public 20 meeting at our headquarters office back in Rockville, 21 Maryland to discuss technical issues associated with 22 the development of a regulatory basis for the disposal 23 of greater than Class C waste as I described 24 previously, and to discuss the scoping study for very 25

11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 low-level waste.

1 Several of you may have participated in 2

that meeting either in person or by phone or via 3

webinar. And, if so, we certainly welcome you hear to 4

provide any additional insights that you have.

5 The goal of our meeting is to gain 6

insights from you on various issues that should be 7

considered in the development of the regulatory basis 8

for greater than Class C.

9 As I understand it, we've developed a 10 technical basis document and we're interested in any 11 views that you may have regarding the various aspects 12 that we discuss in that document.

13 And, we also want to receive your 14 perspectives on the opportunities to improve and 15 strengthen our regulatory framework for the management 16 of very low-level waste.

17 Your input regarding both of these 18 important topics is important to us. And, we invite 19 you to participate in the meeting by sharing your 20 comments and views at the designated times on the 21 agenda.

22 And, again, I want to thank you for taking 23 the time here on a Friday morning. Some of you I 24 believe attended the waste management symposia this 25

12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 week and a lot of good discussion on some of the 1

topics that we will be engaging on today.

2 And, again, we look forward to your 3

comments and the input that you provide after each of 4

the presentations that we will deliver to you.

5 So, with that, I'll close and turn it back 6

over to Mr. Barkley.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, thank you.

9 At this point, we'll move to our first 10 speaker.

11 MR. DEMBEK: Hello, everyone. I'm Steve 12 Dembek. I am a Project Manager in working under 13 Marc's organization. And, my specific area is Part 14 61, so I'm going to give you an overview on a couple 15 of items.

16 And, we said this is going to be a -- just 17 a brief overview and then the main reason we are here 18 today is to listen to Kellee Jamerson talking about 19 the very low-level waste scoping study and Chris 20 McKenney talking about greater than Class C waste 21 regulatory basis development.

22 With that, next slide? Yes, thank you.

23 No, that slide, sorry. It's very confusing. No, not 24 that one. The outline slide. Okay, no, you were 25

13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 right, keep going.

1 So, the status of the Part 61 rulemaking, 2

for those of you that are totally unfamiliar with this 3

issue, the issue itself began back in 20015 with the 4

question of large quantities of depleted uranium, 5

could they safely be disposed of in the low-level 6

waste facilities that were currently operating in this 7

country?

8 The rulemaking effort started back in 9

2009. The Commission directed the staff to start 10 rulemaking on this issue.

11 So, as you can see, this issue has been 12 going on for quite some time now. And, we're not 13 finished yet.

14 So, going back to this slide, the staff 15 developed a proposed rule and associated draft 16 guidance and issued it for public comment in the 17 Federal Register back in March of 2015. And, 18 publishing the proposed rule for comment resulted in 19 numerous written and oral comments.

20 Overall, the staff had to analyze and 21 respond to about 850 comments. The staff evaluated 22 those comments, made revisions to the proposed rule 23 and developed a draft final rule.

24 The draft final rule was -- had numerous 25

14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 changes from the proposed rule and, because it changed 1

again, I'm not going to get into all of those changes 2

that occurred back then. I'll talk more about the 3

more recent changes.

4 So, the draft final rulemaking package was 5

provided to the Commission in September of 2016 and it 6

became publically available later that year in October 7

2016.

8 And, as you can see, there is the ML 9

number for those of you familiar with the NRC ADAMS 10 system, there's the ML number there if you're 11 interested in looking at that.

12 We also met, and these are all available, 13 too, on our website.

14 We also met with the NRC's Advisory 15 Committee on Reactor Safeguards. And the Advisory 16 Committee on Reactor Safeguards gave their input to 17 the Commission on this draft final rule.

18 And, based on what was given to the 19 Commission, the Commission thought that over and came 20 up with a staff requirements memorandum that was 21 issued on September 8th, 2017.

22 And, before I go on to the next slide, we 23 also have a guidance document that was published that 24 accompanied this -- the draft final rule that was 25

15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 issued in 2016. And, that is NUREG-2175, and that was 1

also in draft form and that was made publically 2

available so people can look at that and comment on 3

that.

4 And, all these documents can be found on 5

the NRC's public website, through the NMSS website or 6

they can be found in ADAMS.

7 Next slide, please?

8 So, this SRM, SECY-16-0106 is the SRM that 9

directed the staff to make changes to the draft final 10 rule that we proposed back in 2016. So, in this staff 11 requirements memorandum, the Commission directed the 12 staff to make substantive revisions to the draft 13 final.

14 And, that was given to the Commission in 15 September 2016 and, subsequently, to republish it as a 16 supplemental proposed rule for a 90-day public comment 17 period.

18 And, on my next slide, I'll discuss the 19 direction given to the staff in the SRM.

20 So, now, I would like to discuss some of 21 the changes that the Commission directed the staff to 22 make in that SRM. So, I'm going to go around through 23 the ovals here.

24 The SRM directed substantive revisions to 25

16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the draft final rule and the subsequent publication, 1

as I just mentioned, and the associated guidance 2

document, which as I mentioned before is NUREG-2175, 3

must also be revised and should be made publically 4

available concurrent with the comment period on the 5

supplemental proposed rule.

6 The SRM reinstates the first significant 7

change in the SRM. The SRM reinstates the use of a 8

case by case basis, in other words, the grandfather 9

provision, for applying new requirements to only those 10 sites that plan to accept large quantities of depleted 11 uranium for disposal.

12 It reinstates the 1,000 year compliance 13 period. And, the previous rule had a 1,000 and 10,000 14 year compliance period with a specific dose limit of 15 25 millirem per year that's consistent with the 16 previous draft rule.

17 And, it adopts a longer period of 18 performance assessment, the period of which will be 19 based on site specific considerations and a reasonable 20 analysis, which the reasonable analysis was defined in 21 another SRM.

22 The changes in the SRM also clarify that 23 the safety case consists of the quantitative 24 performance assessment, which I just mentioned, as 25

17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 supplemented by consideration of defense in depth 1

measures.

2

And, speaking of defense in depth 3

measures, the SRM required the staff to modify the 4

draft final rule text addressing defense in depth to 5

narrow its consideration solely to providing 6

additional assurance in mitigating the effects of 7

large uncertainties that are identified during the 8

performance assessment.

9 And, lastly, it requires the final rule to 10 be informed by broader and more fully integrated but 11 reasonably foreseeable cost and benefits to the U.S.

12 waste disposal system resulting from the proposed rule 13 changes, including pass through costs to waste 14 generators and waste processors.

15 And, regarding that last step that I just 16 mentioned, the staff did hold a public meeting on that 17 and the staff did issue a Federal Register Notice on 18 that, so we have received comments on that.

19 And, the staff is currently considering 20 those comments and determining the best way to respond 21 to those comments and address them in our next 22 rulemaking document.

23 So, for the next step, the staff is 24 currently working on revised rule language to 25

18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 incorporate the direction provided by the Commission 1

in their September 2017 SRM. The staff will give the 2

supplemental proposed rule to the Commission for their 3

information, as Marc mentioned.

4 And, it will then be issued for the 90-day 5

public comment period.

6 And, after the 90-day public comment 7

period, the staff will assess the comments that we 8

receive and the staff will consider those comments and 9

develop a draft final rule for the Commission's 10 consideration.

11 Next slide, please?

12 So, that was my discussion on the update 13 of Part 61. And, when I'm done with my presentation, 14 I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might 15 have on that.

16 But, before I get into that, before I 17 finish up, there is the one issue on 10 CFR 20.2002, 18 Alternative Disposal Request Guidance.

19 And, for those of you in the audience not 20 familiar with 10 CFR 20.2002, for very low levels --

21 for radioactive waste that has very low levels of 22 activity, there's some alternate paths that a licensee 23 may choose to try to get for disposal.

24 Say, at a different waste disposal site, 25

19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 or in some cases, they might be able to use a 1

recycling or use of material. But, these have to be 2

approved on a case by case basis.

3 So, in 2009, the staff issued guidance on 4

alternative disposal options. And, this was the first 5

single procedure covering safety and security reviews, 6

the preparation of an environmental assessment and 7

coordination with stakeholders for alternative 8

disposal requests.

9 This draft interim procedure was issued 10 with a plan to finalize it after it was used for a 11 while and we received feedback on its use.

12 The staff has now revised the draft 13 guidance with the purpose of providing more clarity, 14 consistency and transparency and clarifying the NRC's 15 position regarding disposal, reuse and recycling of 16 this material.

17 On October 19th of 2017, the NRC issued 18 for a 60-day public comment period the staff's 19 proposed revision to this guidance document.

20 The comment period expired but was 21 extended and it expired again on January 17th of 2018.

22 So, at this point, the staff is currently 23 assessing all the comments received and determining 24 the necessary changes that need to be made to the 25

20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 guidance document to account for these comments.

1 The final alternative disposal request 2

guidance is expected to be issued later this year.

3 Next slide?

4 And, with that, that completes the brief 5

overview. Again, the main purpose of this meeting is 6

the very low-level waste scoping study and the greater 7

than Class C waste regulatory basis development.

8 But, I'd be happy to answer any questions 9

you might have on the status of these two issues.

10 MR. CAMPER: Thank you, Steve.

11 Larry

Camper, NRC

retired, Advoco 12 Professional Services.

13 On the SRM that you mentioned that 14 assignment number five where the staff was directed to 15 go determine more cost information, including past 16 through costs.

17 Two points, one, what's your impression?

18 I mean, obviously, a reg analysis was done as part of 19 the rulemaking, but the Commission wanted more.

20 What's the staff's impression of what the Commission 21 was looking for? And, how's it going with regards to 22 getting the pass through of cost information?

23 MR. DEMBEK: Yes, I'm struggling because I 24 don't want to say, thank you, Larry, to that.

25

21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (LAUGHTER) 1 MR. DEMBEK: I hesitate on that. It's an 2

interesting question, Larry, I'll put it that way.

3 We didn't get that many public comments on 4

that. And, but, we did get some comments that will 5

help us in that direction.

6 I think there was some feedback during 7

this process that we didn't adequately consider the 8

costs that would be passed on to say producers of 9

depleted uranium that would have to dispose of this 10 material in the long-term.

11 And, I think the Commission wanted us to 12 make sure that we considered that in the regulatory 13 analysis part of the rulemaking effort.

14 And, we are -- we have not finalized an 15 updated regulatory analysis based on those comments, 16 so we're still thinking that over, still thinking 17 about the comments we received.

18 MR. CAMPER: So, a footnote. So, on the 19 pass through question, are you getting meaningful 20 information from operators, waste generators, et 21 cetera, or not?

22 Obviously, it's a proprietary sensitive 23 thing, it's a tough call for the staff to do this.

24 I'm just curious how that's going?

25

22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. DEMBEK: We got a few comments. I 1

don't recall at this time how worthwhile those 2

comments are, how helpful those comments are, I don't.

3 But, we did get comments and we did get 4

some additional information that will help us.

5 Yes, anyone else?

6 Yes, Marc?

7 MR. DAPAS: Larry, I just wanted to add, 8

you know, in providing the proposed rule to the 9

Commission, they had the opportunity to see the public 10 comments that we received. You know, we had various 11 stakeholder engagements there.

12 And, the Commission has the opportunity to 13 see how we disposition those public comments. And, 14 based on the opportunity I had at the Office Director 15 level during periodic meetings with individual 16 Commissioners, I think they wanted to ensure that the 17 staff had done as thorough a job as they could in 18 assessing the various cost considerations there.

19 And, obviously, asked us to consider pass 20 through costs. And, there had been stakeholders that 21 suggested that should be considered as part of the 22 staff's cost benefit analysis.

23 So, I would offer, it was direction by the 24 Commission to make sure we were as thorough and 25

23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 complete as we could be in considering the costs of 1

that rule and the impact on the associated 2

stakeholders.

3 MR. DEMBEK: Yes?

4 MR. SEITZ: This is Roger Seitz from 5

Savannah River National Lab. And, I guess maybe a 6

difficult question, but not too probing.

7 Any sense of when the new Part 61 will 8

come out?

9 MR. DEMBEK: Well, like the twenty 2002 10 guides, we're also hoping to get that done later this 11 year. I think that's the best estimate I can do at 12 this time.

13 (OFF MICROPHONE COMMENTS) 14 MR. DEMBEK: The question was, when will 15 the staff complete the 10 CFR Part 61 supplemental 16 proposed rule?

17 And, the answer, as you heard was that I'm 18 not sure but we're hoping to get that done later this 19 year.

20 MR.

CAMPER:

Larry

Camper, Advoco 21 Professional Services.

22 Another challenging issue for the staff, I 23 think, was task number one in the SRM, this idea of 24 the grandfathering provision.

25

24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I know, Marc, you spoke to this the other 1

day when it came up. But, I think it's worthwhile in 2

this setting just to vet it a little bit.

3 I mean, the challenge that I see is that 4

the staff was directed to use the grandfathering 5

provision and apply it to those states that do not 6

intend to take, in the future, large quantities of 7

depleted uranium.

8 And, on the surface, that sounds fairly 9

straightforward. But, I think it's a little more 10 complicated than that for two reasons.

11 One, when the grandfathering provision was 12 in there before, there were certain actions that were 13 taken by the states at that time, that is they adopted 14 Part 61.

15 And so, when I read case by case, it 16 implies that something is to be done, whatever that 17 something is. And so, I'm curious as to what you're 18 thinking on what that something is?

19 But, the other part that kind of 20 perplexing is, the rule contains compatibility 21 associated with it for the various parts of the 22 regulatory language.

23 But, yet, the Commission seems to be 24 telling the staff that those states that don't intend 25

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to take large quantities of DU in the future, are not 1

subject to those compatibility requirements.

2 So, it's a difficult assignment for the 3

staff, I think. And, I know, Marc, you mentioned 4

you're going to explore communication with the 5

Commission.

6 So, anything you can say about that would 7

be appreciated.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. DAPAS: Maybe I should hold the mic.

10 (LAUGHTER) 11 MR. DAPAS: Thanks for the question, 12 Larry.

13 As I indicated yesterday during one the 14 technical sessions at the waste management symposia, 15 we do have, and you referenced this in your slide, we 16 asked the Commission via what we call a COMSECY, 17 Commission SECY paper, to provide some clarification.

18 As you've indicated, reinstate the 19 grandfather provision, one could offer would refer to 20 the current Part 61 framework where there was 21 reference to a grandfather provision. And, that was 22 to address, at the time, Part 61 rule was developed.

23 There was the recognition of the impact on 24 some of the existing facilities and there were various 25

26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 license conditions that were imposed.

1 So, reinstate the grandfather provision 2

would, you know, would appear to be, you know, 3

backward looking in the context of, can the regulator, 4

let's say an Agreement State regulator decide that the 5

new requirements will not apply for a given facility.

6 Then, when you add the language for those 7

sites that plan to acquire large quantities of 8

depleted uranium, that is a going forward.

9 So, it begged the question, does the 10 grandfather provision only apply to those sites that 11 plan to acquire large quantities of depleted uranium 12 in the future? Or, does it apply to sites right now 13 that have depleted uranium inventories for which they 14 do not plan to acquire large quantities of depleted 15 uranium in the future?

16 So, point being, we laid out various 17 options in how that particular SRM provision could be 18 interpreted and we've asked for Commission 19 clarification and the Commission is evaluating that 20 right now.

So, it, obviously, would have 21 implications.

22 And then, the other aspect is, reinstate 23 the grandfather provision, was it intended to be for 24 the entire set of requirements in the new rule or is 25

27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 it provision by provision? So, that was another, you 1

know, you develop a matrix, it can make your head hurt 2

a little bit there with the different options.

3 But, we did provide that by way of 4

transparency with the Commission in terms of how it 5

might be interpreted. We're waiting for feedback from 6

the Commission and then we'll decide. And, we'll 7

obviously implement that direction.

8 Hope that helps.

9 MR. CAMPER: What' the date of the COMSECY 10 you referenced?

11 MR. DAPAS: Yes, I don't think we have the 12 COMSECY date handy. We can get that for you.

13 MR. DEMBEK: I didn't have that.

14 MR. CAMPER: It's not publically available 15 since it's obviously pre-decision guidance.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. DEMBEK: Do we have another question?

18 OPERATOR: We do have a question from the 19 phone line.

20 Diane D'Arrigo, your line is open.

21 MS. D'ARRIGO: Thank you.

22 Hi, this is Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear 23 Information Resource Service.

24 This is actually a question for whoever's 25

28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 running the phone lines. I don't really think it's 1

possible to hear. I don't know if other people are 2

having the same problem, but it sounds very, very 3

quiet and I'm wondering if it's possible to raise the 4

volume so I've got all my volumes on maximum. I would 5

appreciate it if that could --

6 It's especially difficult for the people 7

who are not -- it sounds like there's some people who 8

are maybe on the panel up front and then there are 9

people in the audience that are going to a microphone.

10 You can't hear.

11 MR. DEMBEK: Okay, thank you, Diane, we'll 12 try to be clearer with our phone conversation. Thank 13 you.

14 MS. D'ARRIGO: Well, I'm asking if the 15 phone system could raise the volume because I don't 16 think people are going to remember to yell and you 17 don't want to yell when you're in a meeting.

18 So, if it's possible for the phone 19 managers to raise the volume, it just would be very 20 helpful.

21 MR. DEMBEK: Okay, we will look into that, 22 Diane, thank you.

23 (OFF MICROPHONE COMMENTS) 24 MR. SHRUM: So, we're going to try this.

25

29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I'm a public commenter and I've come up to the podium 1

and people on the phone may want to voice if you can 2

hear better if somebody comes to the podium.

3 My comment on this --

4 PARTICIPANT: Name?

5 MR. SHRUM: Oh, is that important? My 6

name is Dan Shrum, I work with Energy Solutions.

7 My comment on the grandfather clause is 8

this, a lot of things happened with the Part 61 rule, 9

and one of the things that happened was the 10 grandfather clause was actually removed without any 11 public comment on whether or not the grandfather -- on 12 that clause should be removed or not.

13 That was not removed in the draft, it was 14 not removed until the final came out and suddenly, it 15 just disappeared. So, that's my first comment and 16 that's kind of the challenge.

17 The second part of it is, it used to be 18 there. There were no compatibility issues with it 19 being there. And, all we're -- a lot of us, all we're 20 asking is, allow those facilities that do not want to 21 take significant volumes of depleted uranium to 22 continue operating under their current regulatory 23 regime so that they can remain in business and 24 continue on their operations.

25

30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Because, what they're doing today was 1

specifically authorized and evaluated during the 2

development of Part 61.

3 So, Part 61 is flexible enough, I believe, 4

because we operate a facility that can only take Class 5

A waste and that falls within Part 61, that's okay.

6 So, why not allow a facility that doesn't want to take 7

long-lived isotopes such as depleted uranium to 8

continue operating. You don't have to take it all.

9 MR. DEMBEK: Thank you, Dan.

10 So, just to respond to the first part of 11 Dan's comment, the grandfathering clause was initially 12 put into the regulation, 10 CFR Part 61, because 10 13 CFR Part 61 did not exist, but there existed some low-14 level waste sites already.

15 So, when the staff imposed that new 16 regulation, we did not want to get into a situation at 17 that time where these licensees were instantaneously 18 in violation of NRC requirements.

19 So, we put in this grandfathering clause 20 case by case basis where the states could say, well, 21 we can't implement this part of the regulation at this 22 time, but we can do that in several years, so we'll 23 work toward that.

24 And, eventually, all the sites came into 25

31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 compliance with their Agreement State equivalent 1

regulations to the NRC Part 61. So, at that time, 2

basically, the grandfathering clause was no longer in 3

use because it had become OBE, basically, overcome by 4

events. It was no longer needed.

5 So, that's just for the background for 6

some people who don't know the issue behind why that 7

was there.

8 So, when you say the staff deleted that in 9

the rulemaking process without any public notice, it 10 was deleted because it was no longer needed and we 11 thought it was confusing because some people thought 12 it was still being used.

13 So, that's just a little background there.

14 MR. BARKLEY: Let's try standing up and 15 speaking as loudly as we can.

16 MS. EDWARDS: This is Lisa Edwards with 17 EPRI.

18 If they had not used the word reinstate, 19 if they had used terminology that said, provide a 20 grandfather clause for sites that were not going to 21 take additional quantities of depleted uranium or 22 large quantities of that, would that remove the 23 ambiguity or the confusion?

24 MR. DEMBEK: Okay, the question was, if 25

32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Commission worded their SRM differently, instead 1

of saying reinstate, if they just said, add a new 2

grandfathering clause to the regulation, would that 3

resolve the problem?

4 Well, part of the problem is then deciding 5

which regulations a licensee would have to comply 6

with.

7 So, let's say you had certain regulations 8

about the waste classification, say, but if you're 9

going to do a site specific analysis, you could either 10 use the waste classification tables or you could use 11 your site specific analysis.

12 But, if you were grandfathered, then you 13 could only use the waste classification tables.

14 And, it got into a potential confusion 15 area of, how could we say, you are grandfathered to 16 this rule and this rule and this, but not this rule 17 because we didn't change that rule.

18 And, it just got to the point of potential 19 confusion. So, the staff is currently working through 20 that issue.

21 MR. SUBER: Okay, so, this Greg Suber.

22 We appreciate your comments on 23 grandfathering, but I just want you to bear in mind 24 that --

25

33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Okay, this is Greg Suber.

1 We appreciate your comments on 2

grandfathering. I just want you to bear in mind that, 3

once we have drafted the proposed rule, it will be 4

issued for public comment.

5 And, it's kind of difficult for us to sit 6

here and pontificate or guess about which way the 7

Commission is going to direct us or redirect us or 8

respond to the COMSECY, so on and so forth.

9 So, even though I appreciate a lot of your 10 comments and we're welcome to have the comments, to 11 guess and speculate about what it's going to look like 12 in the upcoming months is really not a very productive 13 exercise.

14 So, I just wanted to say that so we can 15 move on with the rest of the meeting.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. DEMBEK: Operator, any other questions 18 on the phone?

19 OPERATOR: I'm seeing no questions on the 20 phone line at this time.

21 MR. DEMBEK: No questions on the phone.

22 Any questions -- any other questions?

23 MR. DAPAS: I have one last comment I do 24 want to make.

25

34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. DEMBEK: Right. Let's bring you up 1

front.

2 MR. DAPAS: This is Marc Dapas, Director 3

of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 4

Safeguards.

5 One comment on that grandfather, as Steve 6

-- grandfather provision, as Steve indicated, the 7

staff proposal to the Commission did not include a 8

grandfather provision.

9 The staff was proposing that the current 10 inventory of depleted uranium, that mixed waste stream 11 that had not been fully contemplated in terms of the 12 quantities that are possessed at some of the disposal 13 facilities, was not considered, right, when the rule 14 was first promulgated in, what, was it 1982.

15 There are additional waste streams that we 16 were attempting to address with the new Part 61 rule.

17 So, the staff did not propose a grandfathering 18 provision because the grandfather provision that 19 currently exists in the rule was applied to the 20 facilities that existed at the time.

21 And, as Steve has articulated, it obviated 22 the need to include the grandfather provision in the 23 current rule.

24 The Commission weighed in, as is 25

35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 appropriate as a policy setting body for the NRC, and 1

directed the staff to reinstate the grandfather 2

provision.

3 For the reasons that we've articulated, it 4

was not clear what was the Commission's intent. And, 5

that's why we have asked the Commission, please 6

provide clarification to the staff so we can proceed 7

going forward with the appropriate incorporation of a 8

grandfather provision.

9 So, I hope that helps provide some 10 clarity. And, as Greg mentioned, when that proposed 11 supplemental rule is published, which will incorporate 12 the direction we receive from the Commission regarding 13 the clarity that they'll provide on the grandfather 14 provision and large quantities of depleted uranium 15 going forward, et cetera, then we will implement that 16 direction and the public will have an opportunity to 17 comment on that proposed supplemental rule.

18 So, I do appreciate the interest in that 19 subject matter area. It's a very important area. I 20 appreciate the comments by Dan in terms of how you 21 would like to see that applied.

22

And, there are various stakeholder 23 comments and reviews on how a grandfather provision 24 should be applied and the need for it.

25

36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And, all that will be considered as we go 1

forward as part of the supplemental proposed rule.

2 Public comment period before we would go forward with 3

a finalized rule, which, again, would receive another 4

opportunity for the Commission to weigh in before that 5

final rule is issued.

6 So, thanks for your interest in that 7

subject matter. And, if we could move on to other 8

areas associated with the presentation.

9 So, thanks.

10 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, thank you.

11 We'll move on to our next presenter in 12 there at this point in time, Steve?

13 MR. DEMBEK: Thank you all for those 14 interesting questions. Appreciate it.

15 MR. BARKLEY: We do have another question 16 up on the system here, if you can answer this, please?

17 MR. DEMBEK: Okay, we have a question on 18 the webinar. Has the staff request to the Commission 19 on grandfathering been submitted? And, if not, when 20 and will it be made public?

21 So, Marc had covered this topic already.

22 The COMSECY was submitted to the Commission, it has 23 not been made public. When will it? I don't know.

24 It's pre-decisional right now.

25

37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Will it be made public later? I can't 1

say, I don't know. It's pre-decisional, but it has 2

been issued to the Commission. The Commission is 3

considering that and has not responded to the staff 4

yet.

5 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, thanks, Steve.

6 Let's move to the next presenter here on 7

greater than Class C waste.

8 And, I think when we go to the questions, 9

let's try, if you're near the edge, maybe you can come 10 up to the microphone and say it so the people on the 11 phone can hear it.

12 And, if you're near the middle and you're 13 tied up, I'll bring the microphone to you. We'll have 14 the speaker reiterate your question, summarize it so 15 the people on the phone can hear it.

16 Because, roughly, a quarter of all the 17 attendees at this meeting are on the phone. So, I 18 want to be fair to everyone.

19 MR. MCKENNEY: Okay, welcome.

20 I'm here to talk about one of the other 21 Commission directions that has been given to the staff 22 during this time period that we got a couple years 23 ago.

24 With that -- because this was a request by 25

38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the waste control specialist in Texas, the State of 1

Texas reached out to the NRC a couple years ago to ask 2

what was the level of ability of an Agreement State to 3

regulate the disposal of greater than Class C in a 4

shallow or near shallow -- sorry -- surface or near 5

surface disposal facility, because WCS is nowhere near 6

shallow.

7 So, the staff proceeded to write some 8

papers on the history and the scope of greater than 9

Class C and transuranic waste, which also gets 10 involved in this.

11 And so, for today's meeting, we're looking 12 to talk about some of the technical issues that we've 13 been looking at and looking for input from the -- from 14 you to find, is there other things that we need to be 15 looking at as we build the regulatory basis that's 16 been requested by the Commission?

17 And, next slide?

18 So, low-level waste is divided in several 19 classes. Of course, all the waste is define by what's 20 not. It's not high-level waste. It's not byproduct 21 material or uranium mill tailings.

22 The -- I'm hesitating on transuranic 23 waste, because in different things it's been defined 24 sometimes within the definition and sometimes not.

25

39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Currently, in Part 61, transuranic is 1

listed as an exclusionary definition.

2 But, low-level waste itself has been split 3

into subcategories. The normal ones for disposal at a 4

facility are Class A, B and C. The following talk 5

will be on very low-level waste which will be on the 6

lower end of Class A.

7 The greater than Class C is then the --

8 any waste that has got higher concentrations than are 9

listed in the table for protection of the intruder.

10 And, within the regulations, based on the 11 analysis we did in 1981 which used trench based 12 technologies to evaluate what the appropriate 13 concentrations were for near surface disposal.

14 Next slide?

15 So, in 2015, we got a letter from Texas 16 because they got a letter from WCS requesting what is 17 the level of clarification on authority to regulate 18 greater than Class C.

19 We created a paper to the Commission, as 20 this was a policy decision. There had been previous 21 discussions which is discussed in detail in this paper 22 on, back in '89, on the issue not on authority, but on 23 what is greater than Class C waste and where should it 24 go?

25

40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Then, we had a staff requirements memo 1

that came out and directed the staff to provide a 2

regulatory -- to develop a regulatory basis for 3

disposal of GTCC through means other than deep 4

geologic disposal.

5 In looking at this authority, we're 6

looking at what is the waste, one? Appropriate for 7

disposal on near surface disposal? Is there a small 8

fraction or some parts of it that are not?

9 If it is available for near surface 10 disposal, can an Agreement State have the authority to 11 regulate that disposal?

12 Or, does its hazard raise to the point 13 that there is, in the part of the Atomic Energy Act 14 which delineates between Agreement States and the NRC 15 responsibilities where, if it's too great of a hazard, 16 NRC doesn't hand that over to the Agreement State.

17 Examples of that are like fuel facilities 18 and what are most in all Agreement States, but, the 19 NRC regulates them.

20 Then, one of the other things was, again, 21 as I said, the Part 61 has a transuranic listed in the 22 exclusionary waste definition, but later in '85, 23 Congress had taken transuranic out of the definition.

24 So, we need to resolve that along without 25

41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 even a definition of transuranic to Part 61.

1 The -- when the most recent SECY on Part 2

61 came out of the proposed -- when we went up with 3

the draft final rule, they redirected the timing of 4

this regulatory basis to be six months after the 5

publication of this supplement proposed rule.

6 Next slide?

7 So, we're not on this slide yet, actually.

8 If you actually say where we are today? Because the 9

staff is current well into the -- is well trying to do 10 completing the Part 61 supplemental rule.

11 Technically, then we'll have public --

12 another set of public engagement beyond today on the 13 actual draft regulatory basis.

14 So, right now, we're trying to ask for 15 your feedback on what's sort of stuff should be in it?

16 Then, we'll build it and then we'll come back out and 17 talk about your comments on the actual regulatory 18 basis.

19 And then, in the future, after that, we'll 20 find out to the degree that we have to do a rulemaking 21 on GTCC.

22 Next slide?

23 So, with the release of -- for this 24 section of requests for involvement by the public, we 25

42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 have issued a drafter technical analysis was a -- to 1

assist in the identification of the potential hazards.

2 GTCC has, because, of course, the concentrations 3

start out at the C boundary and then go up to anything 4

ever produced that are in the class of low-level.

5 That can range quite several orders of 6

magnitude of concentrations of materials, gamma, 7

exposure rates and other things that were not 8

considered necessarily as for normal operations at a 9

disposal -- Part 61 disposal site.

10 So, are there challenges due to 11 inventories? And, what are some of those inventories?

12 You know, can you just average across a subset 13 inventory or do you need to split that up even further 14 because of characteristics?

15 You know, what about security? Security 16 has -- is definitely a different, again, we, in 17 considerations after 9/11 as to what a normal Part 61 18 facility taking up to Class C waste needs for 19 security. Are there other considerations that need to 20 be considered as part of the -- a site were to take 21 greater than Class C waste or higher concentrations of 22 waste with transuranic radionuclides?

23 Of course, this question's been out since 24 2015. So, this does, again, provide an opportunity 25

43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for you to ask questions of where we are.

1 Next?

2 So, you know, there's a lot of little 3

things, but generally you can split the waste of 4

greater than Class C into three basic categories of 5

activated metals and, actually, reactor vessels are 6

largely not, but the parts inside a reactor vessel, 7

there can be small -- there can be components inside 8

them which are greater than Class C waste.

9 The sealed sources, again, not all sealed 10 sources are greater than Class C waste, but that is a 11 type of waste.

12 And then, there's other, which have 13 gloveboxes and other waste that -- from various things 14 including medical isotope production.

15 Next slide?

16 So, activated metals, as a component, is 17 the smallest volume, or no, is one of the smaller 18 volumes, but it has the most activity.

19 Now, it's created by the neutron flux into 20 the -- of the reactor into the component themselves 21 and transforming the radionuclides in the steel into 22 another radionuclide -- into a radionuclide, actually, 23 from a stable to a radionuclide, sorry.

24 And, which that can -- is fairly well --

25

44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 can be fairly calculated, fairly well evaluated both 1

by measurement and by just calculation of what the 2

fluxes they -- of neutrons they saw.

3 But, the secondary thing is, is that most 4

of these activated metals can have scaling on the 5

outside from the water -- from being in the reactor 6

inside the primary coolant or secondary coolant and 7

have scale of surfactant contamination on it.

8 Now, this can range widely between 9

reactors, depending on their history in the -- of was 10 there damaged fuel? Was there other fissile -- not 11 fissile, sorry -- fission products and some amounts of 12 fissile that were present in the water that could have 13 actually became onto the metal surfaces?

14 Now, one of the thing is, because of these 15 high concentrations, we get into one of the first 16 topics of technical considerations that aren't present 17 normally in A, B and C waste, which is one of our 18 concerns to look at is, is there anything to deal with 19 heat problems? Heat production in the waste itself 20 that could have delirious effects on disposal in a 21 low-level waste site? Or, would it have to at least 22 be taken into account by a disposal site?

23 And, again, because of the fact that if 24 it's damaged fuel, you could have transuranic 25

45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 radionuclides as part of that scaling on the surface.

1 Next?

2 Sealed sources, okay, sealed sources are 3

used in a wide variety of uses. Now, our bigger 4

sources are used mostly in the medical and 5

universities. And, they range from what in waste 6

disposal considers short half-life of 30 years for 7

cesium and some very large sources there, too, all 8

sorts of other radionuclides, but including 9

transuranic sources that have or are either americium 10 sources, plutonium sources, that have been used in the 11 past.

12 So, in this one, we have the -- a 13 characteristic to make for consideration of, is there 14 additional requirements to deal with fissile 15 materials?

16 Would Part 61 need to be changed to 17 evaluate or how do we put -- do we put that in the 18 regulations? Do we put it someplace else?

19 We already have some level of evaluation, 20 of criticality controls for disposal. But, is there 21 more considerations because of GTCC or TRU?

22 And, again, from short lived radionuclides 23 in this one, again, we were looking at, does the heat 24 production actually require any changes to Part 61?

25

46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Next slide, please?

1 For other waste, other waste is, of 2

course, this nice category of all sorts of oddballs.

3 But, the -- and a lot of this waste that was actually 4

in the FEIS by the Department of Energy, was a lot of 5

proposed -- was waste that could be generated, not 6

necessarily has been generated.

7 So, some of the ones that are more near-8 term or realistic, are the ones on the molybdenum-99 9

production for medical applications. And, the side 10 wastes that get created from trying to get that 11 molybdenum-99.

12 Or, the possible exhumation of the West 13 Valley disposal site -- waste at the West Valley 14 reprocessing site up in New York.

15 Next slide?

16 So, based on those, the characteristics of 17 the types of waste we have, you know, along with just 18 the activity concerns is that say from a dose point of 19 view or either offsite or intruder, some of the things 20 that really raised to evaluate whether that challenges 21 the current Part 61 structure or is there new 22 requirements necessary?

23 Or, you know, is there thermal output?

24 Does the placement of these in a waste site create gas 25

47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 generation? Or, is there changes needed because of 1

the possibility of more fissile material?

2 And then, also, for a couple of these 3

sealed sources, especially, we have the potential of 4

being more important than the parent.

5 Next slide?

6 So, the staff did some generic analyses, 7

again, not looking at any specific site because we 8

were looking at the, does the structure of Part 61 9

itself have challenges?

10 And, the -- and so, is this waste 11 appropriate for near surface disposal? Not near 12 surface disposal on the specific site, but in general 13 class?

14 And, we looked at the characteristics of 15 offsite dose using a drinking water well off the site, 16 looked at thermal output, fissile material gas 17 generation and intruder doses.

18 And, again, having two classes, one which 19 we have a shallow disposal site much closer to like 20 the typical analysis that was done in Part 61 back in 21

-- for Part 61 back in 1981.

22 And, two, one where it would not be beyond 23 most intruders except for from a well intrusion into 24 the facility.

25

48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 This was to just give us, what are the 1

radionuclides that are driving the risks or the 2

potential consideration do you have to do with those 3

radionuclides in your inventory.

4 And, there's more discussed in detail in 5

the technical paper that went with the Fed Register 6

Notice.

7 But, in general, you see, and we picked 8

500 and 5,000 years so that it wasn't actually an 9

argument about length of -- for time of compliance 10 right here. So, but, and it's also factory time.

11 So, we see a lot of both the offsite doses 12 in both the 500 and 5,000 years being -- the 13 plutonium-239 is a consideration as to how much 14 isolation does that need? And, from the modeling, at 15 least the generic modeling, is there needs to be 16 definitely significant barriers for plutonium-239 to 17 keep it isolated.

18 And, sealed sources, and if you have a 19 really bad site so that you'd have releases to the 20 groundwater within 500 years, then cesium-137 finally 21 shows up, but it decays soon after, even with the huge 22

-- with the very large quantities.

23 And then, intruder dose, you see the 24 aspects, again, Part 61 GTCC level was calculated from 25

49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a shallow intruder dose assessment originally in 1981.

1 And so, you see a lot of the active metals 2

themselves of people being able to pull up the metal 3

and be exposed to these components. The nickel and 4

stuff are not moving out through the environment.

5 Whereas, when you go to a deep well, now, 6

the activated metal and seal with its -- with -- while 7

it has concentrations, you're only going to pull up so 8

small of a piece with the well that it's not as much 9

of a challenge for doing intruder dose.

10 But, the sealed sources, if you were to 11 hit near one, the very concentrated americium and 12 plutonium can really challenge that. So, again, these 13 are forced order calculations, not taking into every 14 intruder dose, intruder assessment that a site might 15 be able to do or take into account the operational 16 aspects which would maybe minimize the concentrations, 17 the aerial concentration of materials.

18 Next slide?

19 So, we have three questions in the federal 20 register notice which you can talk to today, talk to 21 in writing.

22 What are the important radionuclides that 23 need to be considered for disposal with GTCC and 24 transuranic waste?

25

50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And, this is -- sounds simple, in fact, 1

well, maybe sort of them all, but we're also thinking 2

like, is there more -- is there other data sources and 3

other ways to look at it? Like, again, for like 4

activated metals, do you look at activated metals that 5

are from sites that have just little damaged fuel as a 6

different category than damaged fuel sites?

7 Do you -- how do you split up the sealed 8

sources or if there were considerations that you have 9

to look at that?

10 So, it's not just what are important 11 radionuclides, but also are there ways to separate out 12 and split out the different sources into 13 subcategories?

14 Then, second question is, how might GTCC 15 and transuranic waste affect the safety and security 16 of a disposal facility during operations?

17 Again, this is a lot of this is higher 18 activity stuff than what was previously analyzed for 19 A, B and C. And, how might GTCC and transuranic waste 20 affect the disposal facility design for post-closure 21 safety, including protection of an intruder?

22 So, that's the dose side of the house 23 versus the safety and security in number two.

24 Next slide?

25

51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, we have a website with all of these 1

information on the current status of things on 2

transuranic waste and GTCC. Again, as I've already 3

been mentioning, that we did release a Federal 4

Register Notice on these -- with these questions and 5

this analysis on February 14th.

6 Next slide?

7 Now, the Federal Register Notice does go 8

into the various ways to provide comments which we 9

have the way through the -- through the federal 10 rulemaking website at regulations.gov.

11 You have the ability to email comments to 12 rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov.

13 Fax comments and snail mail and hand 14 deliver comments.

15 So, all sorts of ways to provide comments.

16 Again, also, this meeting is also being transcribed, 17 although we still suggest, even if you make a comment 18 here, to use one of these methods so that you can 19 expand on it and make sure that your comment has its 20 context and we get the full meaning of your comment.

21 The comment period ends on April 16th, 22 2018.

23 Next slide?

24 And then, we have on the site how to get 25

52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the regulations for more information, again, on our 1

website. And then, Cordelia Maupin is the Senior 2

Project Manager within the Low-Level Waste Branch that 3

is currently the lead on this project.

4 And, I think it's questions next, so open 5

the floor to questions.

6 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. And, again, I will 7

ask you to speak up and then Chris will repeat your 8

question so the people on the phone can hear you.

9 MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. Lisa Edwards 10 with EPRI.

11 Thank you for that presentation, Chris.

12 On the greater than Class C waste that's resulting 13 from activated metals, I'd be interested in knowing 14 what you would find useful in terms of information 15 that EPRI might be able to collect and provide to you 16 that would help you answer some of these questions?

17 It occurs to me that we have a whole 18 history of shipments of activated metal from a variety 19 of plants. And, there is usually quite detailed 20 characterization of the components that are not 21 shipped because that's how the decision was made to 22 determine that they were greater Class C and needed to 23

-- couldn't be shipped.

24 In addition, we've got a number of sites 25

53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that have actually decommissioned where you have more 1

activated metal that has been disposed of. And, the 2

characterization and manifesting of that certainly 3

exists for how that waste was dispositioned.

4 Those plants that have decommissioned are, 5

I'm guessing, likely to be bounding conditions because 6

the -- what I would say the integrity of fuel has 7

certainly improved in the last several decades and the 8

sites that have decommissioned actually operated at a 9

time where you're like to see more fuel leakers and I 10 presume these radionuclides of interest to you really 11 are based upon surface contamination.

12 Because, the activation of the metal is 13 going to be the same, right?

14 So, if there is something we can provide, 15 then I would be interested in learning that from the 16 staff.

17 MR. MCKENNEY: Okay. Now I have to 18 remember all that.

19 (LAUGHTER) 20 MR. MCKENNEY: Lisa Edwards of EPRI 21 commented about the viability or what specific 22 information on activated metals in the creation of 23 that because of the extensive database of both from 24 activated metals that have been shipped along with 25

54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 analyses at the plants to decide that the materials 1

could not be shipped.

2 That there may be a lot of material that 3

EPRI could mine to try to evaluate what are those 4

issues with the activated -- with the contamination of 5

the -- surface contamination on the activated metals.

6 And, yes, and for the answer, the -- some 7

of the data we've looked on some of those older 8

reports that have gone through that. And, they have 9

about seven plants or something like that, I can't 10 remember.

11 And, if you look at some of those plants 12 histories or not, well, just the results, you get like 13 five to six order of magnitude on some plants on the 14 levels of activated metals, or I'm sorry, surface 15 contamination on the plants.

16 And so, again, taking a broad average of 17 the materials, you run into a risk of the fact that 18 the whole surface really overestimates probably the 19 entire volume of activated metal because, again, a lot 20 of those that have the highest values are from the 21 earliest campaigns.

22 And so, yes, a more modern look at it, I'm 23 saying, is there some classes or breakdowns. Again, 24 yes, we're going to probably try to do a little bit of 25

55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that ourselves. And, if you are at waste -- but we 1

only have seven sites right now.

2 Yesterday, Tim McCartin had a presentation 3

on waste management where he actually showed some 4

sites. So, we can get point to those data values of -

5

- we looked at Reactor Number 4 which was his non-6 named site which had almost no contamination. And 7

then, the presence of what the average was which was 8

several orders of magnitude higher.

9 But, I think the most modern plants would 10 be much more closer to Reactor Number 4 than the early 11 sites.

12 Now, on the other side, of course, as 13 plants have gotten better, they produce less and less 14 greater than Class C waste because they've replaced 15 what could be irradiated.

16 But, that would be a definitely an 17 interesting breakdown.

18 MR. SUBER: Okay, can you -- so that's 19 just up there. Okay, yes, thanks for that -- for the 20 question, Lisa.

21 The first thing I'd like to do is remind 22 everyone that we do have a draft technical evaluation 23 that's available on the website under greater than 24 Class C where we talk about the information that we're 25

56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 using in the beginning of our technical evaluation.

1 And, outside of that, any information that 2

you have that is publically available, you can submit 3

to us through your public comments.

4 So, if you could evaluate that technical 5

report and any -- and, I know that sometimes, EPRI 6

reports are not publically available. And so, it 7

would be hard for us to use them because we would have 8

to reference them.

9 But, if you can submit any information or 10 any technical reports to us through the public comment 11 process that we can docket, then we can, in turn, use 12 that information in our evaluation.

13 So, does that --

14 MS. EDWARDS: I know we have that 15 information. I would have to create it, you know, go 16 and mine the data myself. So, that's why I was asking 17 if you --

18 MR. SUBER: Okay, we definitely need it, 19 right, because the --

20 MS. EDWARDS: Like we have it by --

21 MR. SUBER: Well, we -- submit it as 22 practicable. Okay? And, we'll evaluate it as 23 practicable.

24 So, the basis of a lot of the information 25

57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that we use was information that we received that we 1

had and also, of course, leveraging the Department of 2

Energy's EIS. So, there's a lot of information in 3

DOE's EIS that we used.

4 There's information that we had that we 5

used. But, really, the main reason we did the draft 6

technical evaluation and submitted it for public 7

comment is to ensure that we were capturing the 8

universe of things that were out there.

9 So, it was our hope that people would read 10 the draft technical evaluation and, if there were any 11 gaps or any holes or any missing information that we 12 had that we were considering in our analysis that you 13 would submit that.

14 So, anything that you could submit to us 15 on the docket would be helpful. All right?

16 Thank you.

17 MR. KIRK: Yes, Scott Kirk, Savannah River 18 Remediation.

19 First of

all, Chris, very good 20 presentation.

21 As far as the regulatory basis go, I think 22 you said, you know, you're looking at input from both 23 safety and for safeguard security issues.

24 And so, what I would suggest -- what I 25

58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 would encourage you to do is to look at a lot of the 1

design and site characteristics of existing disposal 2

facilities, because they might be different. Some are 3

in humid environments versus air sites perform 4

different. So, that might be very helpful to you.

5 Also, I would say, look at the experience 6

that has been gained by licensees by implementing the 7

requirements for Part 37 for radioactive materials 8

quantities of concern.

9 A lot of really good information and 10 efforts have already been in place to ensure the 11 security of those types of materials.

12 So, I would encourage you to look at the 13 results of, you know, how that program has been 14 implemented by the Agreement States.

15 And, I would say the same thing about the 16 operational experience by licensees that have managed 17 special nuclear materials in accordance with Part 150.

18 You know, under Part 50, licensees cannot 19 exceed a critical mass of special nuclear materials, 20 and it defines what those are. But, some licensees 21 also have concentration based SNM limits.

22 You had mentioned looking at the framework 23 for ensuring for nuclear criticality safety. But, 24 under 61.16, that framework has already been somewhat 25

59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 looked at. And, once those materials, special nuclear 1

materials are disposed of, that they don't count 2

against your Part 73 physical security requirements of 3

Part 70.

4 And, I think a lot of these issues were 5

also looked at before about 1999, and that was the 6

Agreement States ability to evaluate nuclear 7

criticality safety evaluations for SNM disposed in 8

trenches.

9 And also, a lot of these SNM concentration 10 base limits have already been established that ensure 11 they would be subcritical for FNRAs and media.

12 So, those are my comments.

13 MR. MCKENNEY: So, for those on the line -

14 15 Thanks, Scott, for those comments.

16 Scott Kirk went through and explained a 17 number of past evaluations on both security and on 18 criticality that should be looked at by the staff to 19 make sure that what were their scopes, what were their 20 evaluations to see whether those already encompass the 21 new potential waste of greater than Class C waste or 22 transuranic waste.

23 And that, including Part 37 and some other 24 analyses for -- that we've done including -- also 25

60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 including some of our orders that we've done.

1 But, yes, thank you, Scott, for that 2

comment.

3 The -- we have been looking at several of 4

those, but -- and, especially Part 37 to evaluate 5

that. And, as you said, the criticalities are already 6

there, but again, looking at the establishment of that 7

regulation, is there anything more than we need than 8

that. You know, it's quite potential that we'd say, 9

no, that's quite adequate and we don't need to make 10 them change that in Part 61.

11 But, given that we have a new waste, we 12 just need to be due diligence to look at all those 13 factors and see, is the current regulation --

14 regulatory scope between Part 61 and Part 37 and other 15 things robust enough or is there anything specific we 16 need to do.

17 Any other questions?

18 PARTICIPANT: Larry has a question, he's 19 going to come up front and then I'll take yours.

20 MR.

CAMPER:

Larry

Camper, Advoco 21 Professional Services.

22 Thanks, Chris, for the presentation.

23 The questions that you've asked are 24 general questions and I know you have to proceed in a 25

61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 linear fashion.

1 But, I do recall in SECY-15-0094 Enclosure 2

2 in which the staff did a rather in depth analysis of 3

GTCC waste, the Executive Summary surfaced several 4

specific questions. And, I'm curious as to when, if 5

and how you might surface those questions in a manner 6

similar to what you've done for the three broad 7

questions?

8 Because, the work that was done by the 9

staff in that enclosure was pretty substantive work.

10 And, those questions would be worthy or exploring in 11 the public arena.

12 And then, the second point I'd like to 13 make, if I can, on your general question number three, 14 it's very good that you're asking that question 15 because I've heard comments about adjusting the 16 definition in Part 61 to include transuranic waste.

17

And, it's not as simple as pure 18 administrative change, there's some complicated 19 technical questions and perhaps security questions 20 that will have to be explored.

21 So, I commend you for asking that 22 question.

23 Thank you.

24 MR. MCKENNEY: Thank you, Larry.

25

62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The -- on the question of the previous 1

SECY's questions, I think those would be evaluated 2

when we're setting up the questions for the actual 3

regulatory analysis when it comes out in draft to 4

evaluate that in a more -- with the -- with all of the 5

regulatory analysis to provide context and for the 6

public interactions at that time.

7 As, whereas, this one is much more narrow 8

on, are we going down the right road for the technical 9

analyses that will then inform that draft regulatory 10 analyses?

11 Next?

12 MR. SEITZ: Hi, Chris, this is Roger Seitz 13 from Savannah River National Laboratory.

14 And, I have two questions, I'll break them 15 up for you.

16 The first one, security is an interesting 17 one that I haven't thought about as much. But, what 18 are the thoughts in terms of are there unique security 19 requirements for a disposal facility that wouldn't 20 apply to storage facilities?

21 And, is there some consideration that 22 perhaps disposing may do a big benefit in terms of 23 security.

24 MR. MCKENNEY: Thank you, Roger.

25

63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The comment was from Roger Seitz and was 1

about whether -- what's the difference between, in a 2

way, between the security needs of security -- of 3

storage versus disposing the waste?

4 My answer is that, you have -- it's not 5

necessarily that there is any increased risk at a 6

disposal site. It's that, and this is, again, part of 7

this thing of we're looking at GTCC and TRU where our 8

previous security evaluations for what is appropriate 9

for the range of security at a low-level waste 10 disposal site were done without the concept of 11 bringing GTCC and transuranic on to the site.

12 And so, again, looking at Part 37 and 13 other requirements and saying, are those satisfactory 14 if the disposal site were to take those into account?

15 And, you know, it's not necessarily that 16 we're saying that they're higher -- that it inherently 17 is a higher risk, it's just, the level of evaluation 18 previously didn't include those.

19 So, your second question?

20 MR. SEITZ: And, the second question is a 21 little more detailed on the intruder.

22 It seems that, for Part 61, you have 23 different limits for activated metals versus other 24 materials.

25

64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, greater than Class C is going to be a 1

poster child for how are we going to do an intruder 2

scenario for this?

3 And, I guess, has there been any thought 4

drilling into a stainless steel component is at 500 5

years is certainly different than drilling into some 6

other type of Class C waste at 500 years.

7 Have you thought about how you're going to 8

try and more realistically account for the nature of 9

an activated metal or a sealed source?

10 MR. MCKENNEY: Yes, I mean, yes, sorry, I 11 asked Roger for a second question.

12 The -- was about the intruder analyses and 13 about how do you evaluate especially for the well 14 driller?

15 The interaction between the activated 16 metal and the drill, in other words, do -- where would 17 you, to the degree would you actually assume it harder 18 than other materials and stuff in the details?

19 And, well, in our cases, even if we 20 assumed it was brought up, it was not -- it was not a 21 risk driver for the deep disposal of activated metal.

22 The other one was that it was being 23 brought up as part of the construction worker because 24 it was in a shallow disposal.

25

65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, on the one slide it showed, it said, 1

at the shallow disposal, you had external effects from 2

the activated metal, but -- because it was being 3

brought up in mass, not in necessarily drilling.

4 Whereas, the activated metal was not 5

causing a concern at the deeper disposal.

6 Even at simple, and not taking into 7

account of the material strikes.

8 Now, the same question, though, is true 9

for sealed sources and what degree of protection --

10 what degree of barrier protection could you take in 11 account of the - for the barrier around the sealed 12 source? That could still be looked at.

13 Next question?

14 MR. BARKLEY: This gentleman's going to 15 come to the front and make a question.

16 MR. KALINOWSKI: Tom Kalinowski with D.W.

17 James Consulting.

18 Chris, I was wondering if you could 19 clarify a little bit the concern with the fission 20 product radionuclides on GTCC activated metals.

21 The fission products are present in the 22 corrosion layer which is the same corrosion layer 23 that's on the Class A, B and C activated metals. So, 24 if it's not a -- I mean, if the issue's been evaluated 25

66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for A, B and C, why is it of greater concern for GTCC 1

activated metal?

2 MR. MCKENNEY: Thank you for that 3

question.

4 So, one was, and maybe it was -- it 5

depends, when we've been looking at the evaluations 6

that have had -- they had very large amounts of 7

especially transuranic radionuclides on some of those 8

data sets which we don't think that -- we think those 9

are a

result of scaling factors and really 10 overestimations in reality.

11 But, you're right, we should go back and 12 look at the other ones. Why is it any different?

13 MR. BARKLEY: Any other questions in the 14 room?

15 (NO RESPONSE) 16 MR. BARKLEY: We should move to the 17 microphone and see if there's anyone on the webinar 18 that has a question.

19 MR. MCKENNEY: Any questions on the 20 webinar or on the phone lines?

21 OPERATOR: No questions in queue.

22 MR. DAPAS: Can we ask, like Rich said, if 23 you have a question, you come up to the front. We 24 just want to get some of the comments over here.

25

67 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 There's frustration by people on the phone because 1

they can't hear the questions.

2 So, I apologize for the set up here, it's 3

not the best. But, if you wouldn't mind coming up to 4

the podium so that the people can hear the question 5

and then hear the answer. I think it will be more 6

productive for those that are listening in.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. BARKLEY: Yes, thank you very much.

9 MR. DEMBEK: For those of you on the 10 phone, we just ask that everyone coming -- everyone 11 having questions that they come up to the podium so 12 hopefully things will be better from now on.

13 Thank you for your patience.

14 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, with this point, I 15 believe by the agenda, we are set to take a break here 16 before the next presentation, correct?

17 (OFF MICROPHONE COMMENTS) 18 MR. BARKLEY: So, should we come back at 19 1:35 officially and start this?

20 (OFF MICROPHONE COMMENTS) 21 MR. BARKLEY: By this time zone, 10:32 by 22 that computer, 1:32. Thank you.

23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 10:32 and resumed at 10:40 a.m.)

25

68 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. JAMERSON: Good morning, my name is 1

Kellee Jamerson and I'm a Project Manager in the 2

Division of Decommissioning Uranium Recovery and Waste 3

Programs.

4 I will be presenting today on the very 5

low-level waste scoping study.

6 As you can see from this, the NRC's low-7 level waste program continues to be very active. Our 8

focus for this presentation, as I mentioned, is very 9

low-level waste.

10 Waste considered under this term are on 11 the lower end of Class A waste.

12 Next slide, please?

13 To provide some background, in 2007, due 14 to developments in the national program for low-level 15 radioactive waste disposal, the NRC conducted a 16 strategic assessment of its low-level radioactive 17 waste program.

18 There were 20 tasks identified in the 19 assessment and three of those were related to very 20 low-level waste. Those tasks were to coordinate with 21 other agencies on a consistency and regulating low 22 activity waste disposal, develop guidance that 23 summarizes disposition options for low end materials 24 and waste and to promulgate a rule for disposal of 25

69 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 what is now termed very low-level waste.

1 In 2016, a programmatic assessment was 2

conducted and one task identified as medium priority 3

was to perform a very low-level waste scoping study.

4 This task combined the three tasks above 5

from the 2007 strategic assessment.

6 There was an additional task on the 7

programmatic assessment which was deemed a high 8

priority and was to finalize the guidance for 10 CFR 9

20.2002, Method for Obtaining Approval of Proposed 10 Disposal Procedures.

11 As mentioned earlier, revisions to this 12 guidance document are in process and it is expected to 13 be finalized by the end of the year.

14 Currently, very low-level waste can be 15 disposed under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2002. With 16 more decommissioning waste anticipated, the volume of 17 very low-level waste is also expected to increase.

18 Next slide, please?

19 So, why perform a very low-level waste 20 scoping study now?

21 Although it was originally listed as a 22 medium priority in a programmatic assessment, the very 23 low-level waste scoping study has increased in 24 priority.

25

70 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Changes in the timing of decommissioning 1

has elevated the importance of evaluating more risk 2

informed and performance based approaches for the 3

management of very low-level waste.

4 The staff also recognizes the potential 5

opportunity to improve regulatory efficiency and 6

effectiveness by considering other options for very 7

low-level waste disposal that might create less of a 8

burden -- regulatory burden on licensees.

9 And, lastly, there's an opportunity to 10 explore closer alignment with IAEA standards and other 11 international practices.

12 Next slide, please?

13 The purpose of the very low-level waste 14 scoping study is to identify possible options to 15 improve and strengthen the NRC's regulatory framework 16 for the disposal of very low-level waste, including 17 the potentially large volumes of very low-level waste 18 associated with the radiological event such as a 19 radiological disbursal device.

20 As part of the scoping study, the NRC 21 intends to evaluate regulatory options that would 22 define the conditions under which very low-level 23 waste, including mixed waste, could be disposed of in 24 regular hazardous waste facilities.

25

71 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Nest slide, please?

1 So, in initiating the very low-level waste 2

scoping study, the staff has considered lessons 3

learned and available information from a variety of 4

sources, some of which are seen here.

5 The staff will consider the efforts of 6

other entities and government agencies, studies 7

conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and EPRI 8

as well as EPA's 2003 Advanced Notice of Proposed 9

Rulemaking.

10 Staff will also consider learnings from 11 other countries with respect to very low-level waste 12 disposal as a benchmark and other factors to inform 13 the NRC staff's recommendations to the Commission for 14 addressing very low-level waste.

15 In light of this, the staff has developed 16 questions which you will see momentarily where we 17 desire additional input from our stakeholders.

18 And, as Greg offered, if you have 19 publically available information about very low-level 20 waste management, we encourage you to please submit 21 that to the staff with your formal comment submission.

22 Next slide, please?

23 As a point of clarity, while the very low-24 level waste scoping study may consider the direct and 25

72 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 stakeholder comments and lessons learned from the 1

below regulatory concern policy statements in the 2

proposed rule for controlling the disposition of solid 3

materials is a very different endeavor.

4 The scoping study will only consider 5

disposal of waste as defined by 10 CFR Part 61 and 6

which is essentially the isolation of radioactive 7

waste from the biosphere inhabited by man and emplaced 8

into a land disposal facility.

9 It will not address non-disposable related 10 disposition pathways, including unrestricted release, 11 clearance, reuse or recycled materials.

12 Next slide, please?

13 At the conclusion of the scoping study, 14 results of the staff's assessment as well as our 15 recommendations will be presented to the Commission in 16 a SECY paper.

17 Potential results of the study will 18 include a no action ranging from no action to a 19 potential rulemaking promulgating a rule that would 20 define the conditions under which very low-level waste 21 could be disposed.

22 Staff may also consider additional 23 guidance documents, the need for additional 24 coordination with other federal agencies or the need 25

73 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for a further analysis.

1 And, I would also add, that if you have 2

suggestions for additional possible outcomes, we 3

welcome your feedback on those as well.

4 Next slide, please?

5 On February 14th, 2018, the staff noticed 6

in the Federal Register our very low-level scoping 7

study and requests for comment. And, respondents were 8

asked to consider specific questions posed by the 9

staff. And, these questions are following on the next 10 slide, please.

11 So, we do not have the full questions 12 listed here on this slide, but they have been provided 13 in the back as a handout and also in the Federal 14 Register Notice itself.

15 So, to paraphrase the nine questions as a 16 high level description of each topic for the 17 questions.

18 Question number one is associated with the 19 regulatory definition of very low-level waste.

20 Question number two is regarding new waste 21 category for very low-level waste.

22 Three is asking about guidance documents.

23 Number four, the NRC Agreement State 24 compatibility issues.

25

74 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Number five, regional compact authority.

1 Next slide, please?

2 Number six, waste analysis requirements.

3 Number seven, unintended consequences.

4 Number eight, analytical methods to assess 5

risk.

6

And, lastly, number

nine, economic 7

factors.

8 Next slide, please?

9 So, this provides just information about 10 where you can find more information on the very low-11 level waste at the NRC's website.

12 As I mentioned, this was issued in the 13 Federal Register on February 14th. Our comment period 14 will be a 90-day comment period and will end on May 15 15th.

16 Next slide, please?

17 How to provide comments, so, we have this 18 listed here as well as on the back of your agenda on 19 how to provide comments and it's for both the very 20 low-level waste scoping study and also for GTCC for 21 your convenience.

22 We do have the regulations.gov website as 23 well as you can email your comments to very low-level 24 waste, vllw_scopingstudy@nrc.gov as well as mailing 25

75 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 your comments.

1 And, as a reminder, the comment period 2

ends on May 15th.

3 Next slide, please?

4 For additional information, see our public 5

websites. You may contact myself, Kellee Jamerson or 6

Maurice Heath at the information listed here. It's 7

also provided on the back of the agenda.

8 This concludes my presentation. Are there 9

any questions, comments?

10 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, questions in the room?

11 Hi, why don't you go up front, thank you.

12 MR.

CAMPER:

Larry

Camper, Advoco 13 Professional Services.

14 The slide where the outcomes are 15 identified, rulemaking, I think we can all readily 16 understand that, guidance documents.

17 I'm curious as to what the staff's 18 preliminary thinking is about what the term 19 coordination with other agencies might mean?

20 Historically, back around 2003, the EPA 21 was pursuing a low activity waste initiative. They 22 stopped that. They've raised that specter a few 23

times, almost always waiting for their new 24 administrator.

25

76 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, might that mean?

1 And then, the other question is, what's 2

the target date for conclusion of this initiative?

3 MR. BARKLEY: Thank you.

4 MS. JAMERSON: Thank you for your comment, 5

Larry.

6 What is meant by coordination with other 7

agencies is, we are coordinating, essentially, with 8

the EPA on the scoping study. And, we have considered 9

their comments and concerns. And, it has been rolled 10 into the FRN with the questions that you see. They 11 did provide us with feedback for that. So, we are 12 coordinating in that instance.

13 And, the proposed date for a final, we are 14

-- so with this ending in May, comment period ends in 15 May, we are hoping to provide information to the 16 Commission I would say by spring 2019.

17 MR. BARKLEY: Go ahead, Larry.

18 MR.

CAMPER:

Larry

Camper, Advoco 19 Professional Services.

20 I understand that you're coordinating with 21 other agencies as you go about this. What I mean is, 22 as an operational outcome, what might coordination 23 with other agencies look like futuristically?

24 Futuristically as an outcome?

25

77 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SUBER: All right, thank you, Larry.

1 Once again, this is Gregory Suber.

2 As you -- as Kellee mentioned in her 3

presentation, the EPA had initially started a 4

rulemaking. And, as we go through this endeavor, 5

there are several outcomes, right?

6 So, the NRC can undertake a rulemaking.

7 It may be possible that the NRC could come to some 8

agreement with the EPA in a

Memorandum of 9

Understanding on how to deal with large quantities of 10 very low-level waste generated from a radiological 11 accident.

12 What we didn't want to do is put 13 limitations on the possible outcomes. So, it could be 14 a rulemaking, it could be guidance, it could an MOU, 15 there could be a variety of things that could come 16 about as a result of our coordinating with other 17 federal agencies.

18 So, does that answer your question?

19 And, with regard to the time line, I 20 thought it was a little closer to six months after the 21 end of the comment period that we will probably be 22 coming out with at least a draft scoping study to put 23 through concurrence process. So, I would think it 24 would probably be a little closer to the end of this 25

78 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 calendar year for a final scoping study and 1

recommendation to the Commission for future actions.

2 MR. BARKLEY: Any other questions in the 3

room?

4 (NO RESPONSE) 5 MR. BARKLEY: Kellee, let's try on the 6

bridge to see if there's anyone with a question.

7 MS. JAMERSON: Operator, are there any 8

questions on the bridge line?

9 OPERATOR: Yes, we do have a question.

10 Diane D'Arrigo, your line is open.

11 MS. D'ARRIGO: Thank you. Diane from 12 NIRS.

13 I saw in the Federal Register of this for 14 the very low-level scoping that you're saying that the 15 large increase in volume from decommissioning and 16 possibly from reprocessing and from a dirty bomb.

17 I wanted to know, with regard to the 18 second one, with reprocessing, what the thinking is?

19 Is that -- I mean, since we don't have reprocessing 20 right now. And also, what part of the reprocessing 21 waste stream is that low?

22 MR. SUBER: Once again, this is Gregory 23 Suber. Thanks, Ms. D'Arrigo.

24 The question was, in the Federal Register 25

79 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Notice, we put I believe three things down there for 1

conducting the low-level waste scoping study and 2

bringing it up in importance.

3 One was the anticipation of reactor 4

decommissioning which has been accelerated through 5

premature closing of plants.

6 The second was a possible new waste 7

streams including reprocessing.

8 And, the third was response to a 9

radiological event or accident.

10 And, Diane, what we were trying to convey 11 in that particular instance, and we were just using 12 reprocessing as an example, but what we were trying to 13 do is look at the universe of things that are going on 14 within the nuclear field and saying that there are 15 other activities that people are suggesting, 16 molybdenum production, that there are a number of new 17 activities that are potentially on the horizon that 18 will generate an array of waste.

19 And, recognizing these new technologies, 20 we just wanted to be in a position to safely and 21 efficiently dispose of concentrations of Class A waste 22 that are very low.

23 Does that make it clearer?

24 MS. D'ARRIGO: With -- well, with regard 25

80 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to reprocessing, if there were to be new rules made 1

and new reprocessing facilities started up, are you 2

envisioning very low-level waste coming from 3

reprocessing?

4 Is that -- I totally understood what you 5

were saying and I was trying to understand, when 6

that's one of the hottest processes in the whole fuel 7

chain, why that would be an example of generating very 8

low-level waste.

9 So, what portion of the reprocessing waste 10 would you be thinking about with regard to very low-11 level waste?

12 MR. SUBER: Okay, so the question is what 13

-- with reprocessing being an activity that uses 14 radioactive material of very high concentrations, what 15 portions of the waste would we be considering for very 16 low-level waste?

17 And, what I'd like to emphasize, again, 18 is, once again, when you talk about new technologies, 19 and we -- and Chris alluded to this earlier in his 20 comments, historically, we have looked at waste and 21 classified waste but not by its hazard, but by the way 22 it was generated.

23 I mean, high-level waste is basically, you 24 know, waste that is high-level waste is, by definition 25

81 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and not exactly by its radiological content and 1

hazard.

2 And, what we were saying or what we were 3

asking, because, as you know, this is a scoping study, 4

the question that we were asking is that, as we look 5

at these new processes, including reprocessing and we 6

just used that as an example, and I'd like to re-7 emphasize that, as we look at new processes, you know, 8

should we look at them holistically and look at the 9

risk generated by the waste streams and just not 10 designate waste as hazard, you know, not classify it 11 based on its origin, but classify the waste based on 12 its hazard.

13 So, that's the question that we're asking 14 in that part of the scoping study. Is that clear?

15 MR. D'ARRIGO: Well, I hear what you're 16 saying. Its just that it seems like a very strange 17 example to give. I mean, it's an indicator that, yes, 18 you are seriously looking at licensing reprocessing.

19 But, if those of us around reprocessing 20 facilities are struggling trying to clean them up and 21 it seems like it's an insurmountable problem to talk 22 about, classifying some of that waste as very low-23 level, it seems like the worst example you could come 24 up with.

25

82 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And, I just wondered if there's some part 1

of the reprocessing process that generates a lot of --

2 and I understand with decommissioning that you want to 3

have concrete and soil, of course, your pond's 4

releasing it, but I can see where it's coming from.

5 But, with reprocessing, I don't know if 6

you're talking about the hardware around -- I mean, 7

everything's high-level to do with it. And so, I'm 8

just -- where in that process would there be any very 9

low-level waste?

10 MR. SUBER: Okay, so I recognize your 11 point. And, maybe reprocessing wasn't the best 12 example.

13 But, what we are saying is that we are 14 going to look at those wastes based on the hazard.

15 And, that was the point that we were trying to 16 communicate in that particular example.

17 And, should we have picked a better 18 example, standing up here today right now, I would say 19 yes.

20 MS. D'ARRIGO: Okay.

21 MR. SUBER: Thank you.

22 MR. BARKLEY: Thank you.

23 Let's check with Cedric to see if there's 24 any other people that have a comment that's on the 25

83 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 line.

1 MS. JAMERSON: Cedric, do we have any 2

additional questions?

3 MR. KLEVORICK: Phil Klevorick.

4 MS. JAMERSON: I'm sorry?

5 MR. KLEVORICK: Can you guys here me?

6 It's Phil Klevorick in Clarke County, Las Vegas, 7

Nevada.

8 MS. JAMERSON: Okay.

9 MR. KLEVORICK: I gave my name to the 10 operator, I'm not sure if I was going to get 11 introduced.

12 MS. JAMERSON: Yes, you're through.

13 MR. KLEVORICK: Okay. So, good morning.

14 I'm obviously calling from Las Vegas. So, mine is an 15 administrative question, not a technical question.

16 So, I would appreciate some kind of explanation on how 17 a Federal Register Notice on February 14th can 18 subsequently include a proactive, positive public 19 meeting that would be held on February the 22nd?

20 And, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, 21 is there a minimum amount of notification that needs 22 to go in the Federal Register Notice for public 23 involvement?

24 And, the second part of that question is, 25

84 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 does the NRC understand that if they did meet a 1

minimum requirement for a Federal Register Notice, do 2

they understand that it's very difficult for people 3

who are not living in the D.C. area to make 4

arrangements to participate in person at these 5

meetings on such a short notice?

6 MR. DEMBEK: Hello, my name is Steve 7

Dembek, I'm going try to answer your question or 8

comment.

9 Basically, the NRC's official process for 10 noticing our public meetings to through the NRC 11 website. And, the goal there is to announce these 12 meetings ten days ahead of time. But, that is a goal, 13 that's not a requirement on the NRC staff, that's a 14 goal.

15 And, in that case, that was done for this 16 particular meeting.

17 The Federal Register Notice was an extra 18 notification of this meeting and it also contained the 19 additional information about the questions we would 20 like to be answered by the public.

21 So, the Federal Register

Notice, 22 basically, was a

reinforcement of a

meeting 23 announcement that was already made publically 24 available through the NRC's website. And, that's the 25

85 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NRC's policy, that's not the policy of the people in 1

this room here, that's an official NRC policy that the 2

website is to be used as our official notification 3

process for public meetings.

4 MR. KLEVORICK: So, to follow up on that 5

question, so the NRC is satisfactory with an eight-day 6

or, as you would refer to a ten-day notice via a 7

website for a public involvement?

8 So, I guess, and then, I'm going to pause 9

for a second, because I'm going to say that your 10 answer is going to be yes.

11 So, if your answer is yes, why is it that 12 you have such a short period of time for the 13 notification for -- that would exclude public 14 involvement?

15 Why is it important to meet minimum 16 requirements for the NRC to exclude public involvement 17 or participation?

18 MR. DEMBEK: Well, we always try to 19 maximize public involvement and participation. And, 20 in that meeting and in the meeting you're talking to 21 me, we had set up a webinar and we have set up a 22 bridge line for those people who cannot, on short 23 notice, make it to the meeting physically.

24 So, we try to have different ways, and we 25

86 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 also transcribe the meeting. So, if you're not able 1

to come to the meeting or you're not able to listen in 2

at that particular time, you are able to read through 3

the transcript and see what others have said.

4 And, also, there is plenty of time for you 5

to submit public comments on this issue based on the 6

Federal Register Notice questions that we would like 7

to be answered. So --

8 MR. KLEVORICK: Well, I appreciate your 9

comment, but you're not answering my question. My 10 question is very simple. Why is it that it was such a 11 short time notice that was so important to meet a 12 short public notice advisory of eight days from the 13 Register Notice or ten days from your website, as you 14 indicated, which, by the way, I've already indicated 15 how difficult it is to find that notice, so why isn't 16 it that important?

17 Why would not have done it, say, 30 days 18 in advance or three weeks notice or whatever the case 19 may be?

20 So, I'm asking why such a short time 21 period notice?

22 MR. DAPAS: Yes, this is Marc Dapas, the 23 Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 24 Safeguards.

25

87 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And, first of all, I want to thank you for 1

your comment here. And, I have received comments from 2

other members of the public. We need to do a better 3

job in ensuring that we provide sufficient advance 4

notification of when we are planning to have a public 5

meeting so we can maximize the opportunity for 6

individuals to participate in that public meeting in 7

person, if they so desire.

8 I would agree with you that eight days is 9

not sufficient notice. And, while we do post a public 10 meeting notice of availability or plans to conduct 11 that meeting on the NRC's public website under Public 12 Meeting icon or section, you know, I'm not convinced 13 that two weeks is the best time frame.

14 We can do better in that regard and I want 15 to apologize that you only had eight days advance 16 notification of this meeting. And, planning to 17 participate in person with the travel distance can be 18 difficult.

19 So, we do need to do a better job there.

20 I do appreciate your engagement over the phone so that 21 you could take part. And, I am sorry that you weren't 22 able to attend in person because there wasn't 23 sufficient advanced notification.

24 So, we need to do better in that regard.

25

88 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. KLEVORICK: Well, and I appreciate 1

your comment, Marc. I understand that you do 2

recognize that and a similar situation would have been 3

for today's meeting.

4 I was in waste management all for the last 5

four days. But, because of the short notice on that 6

stuff, it actually would have cost me more to have 7

changed it than it cost me to fly back and forth.

8 So, I obviously would prefer to be in 9

person for something that obviously Clarke County is 10 interested in being involved in. So, anything you can 11 do help increase the time line for participation, and, 12 yes, I understand that we all have the ability to 13 generally be involved in a webinar which is, I don't 14 believe is anywhere in my top three of preferences, 15 how to attend the meeting.

16 But, I do understand that that is an 17 option, not the preferred option and for most people, 18 it becomes a second or a third option for -- if the 19 first of attending in person doesn't work out. And, I 20 appreciate you understanding that.

21 So, knowing that, I'm sure that the NRC's 22 approval process takes a significant amount of time to 23 get through when they have to -- or when you guys have 24 to do your travels. So, understanding that other 25

89 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 government agencies operate probably within the same 1

general purview and requirements. So, understanding 2

that as well.

3 And, again, I'm not here to advocate one 4

way or another, I'd just appreciate the fact that I 5

don't believe that the public should be excluded from 6

being able to participate in person because of the 7

short notice or time frame.

8 So, going back to my original question, 9

Marc, I guess, is there a reason why the NRC chose to 10 have such a short time line on having the public 11 meeting on the 22nd?

12 MR. DAPAS: We wanted to have the public 13 meeting here in conjunction with the waste management 14 symposium in order to maximize the opportunity for any 15 stakeholders that we felt had a significant interest 16 in the subject matter to attend.

17 And, we should have noticed it sooner. I 18 would offer the reason that we didn't is following 19 what is the standard practice in terms of time, 20 advanced notice there.

21 And, my point is, we need to do better.

22 And, I'm most disappointed to learn that you here and 23 did not have the opportunity to participate in person 24 because there wasn't sufficient advanced notice.

25

90 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, again, we do need to do a better job.

1 It is my hope that future meetings, clearly, where 2

you would have a desire to attend and be involved in 3

person, that we are giving you sufficient advance 4

notice so that you can make plans accordingly.

5 And, I truly -- I do truly apologize for 6

the circumstance here and how it played out.

7 MR. KLEVORICK: Okay, thank you.

8 MS. JAMERSON: Do we have any additional 9

questions from the phone?

10 OPERATOR: No further questions.

11 MR. BARKLEY: Any further questions from 12 the audience?

13 (NO RESPONSE) 14 MR. BARKLEY: Okay, I think we're done at 15 this point, Kellee.

16 All right, thank you.

17 I do want to thank you for your 18 participation today and for your cooperation as we 19 worked around some of the phone issues here.

20 We did have 16 participants on the phone 21 line the whole time, so it got to the point where it 22 was about 40 percent of the audience. So, I 23 appreciate you accommodating them.

24 To wrap up, I'll have Marc Dapas come up 25

91 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 here and then, at that point, we'll be finishing up 1

the meeting significantly earlier than we were 2

originally planning. But, thank you. I think we got 3

to everyone's questions, so I appreciate. It.

4 MR. DAPAS: Yes, thanks.

5 I just wanted to take the opportunity to 6

thank you for joining us here on a Friday morning here 7

after, for many of you, a long week with the waste 8

management symposia.

9 We very much appreciate the input. I 10 mentioned that one of our principles of good 11 regulation is being open and transparent and affording 12 the public an opportunity to participate in a 13 meaningful manner in the NRC's decision making 14 process.

15 You know, we are gathering information.

16 We need your input so that we can make the most fully 17 informed decisions on how we want to proceed.

18 You heard reference to the very low-level 19 waste scoping study and the result of that and how we 20 would forward any proposed recommended changes in 21 approach to the Commission for their policy 22 consideration.

23 Greater than Class C waste, there are a 24 lot of issues and facets associated with that. It's a 25

92 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 challenging issue. We want to develop a regulatory 1

basis that is as informed as it can be so we welcome 2

your input.

3 Don't let this public meeting be the only 4

forum in which you take advantage of the opportunities 5

to provide us input so we can fully consider that.

6 You know, and if you have thoughts going 7

forward, please share those with us. And, there are 8

many ways that you can do that. And, of course, you 9

know, there will be a public comment period as part of 10 these products that we talked about.

11 So, again, thank you for your time and 12 attention. And, some of us -- we will be here for 13 whatever time necessary after the close of this 14 meeting if you wanted to have any continuing dialogue 15 in any of the matters that we discussed today.

16 So, I wish all of you safe travels going 17 back to your destination and thanks and enjoy the rest 18 of the day.

19 (APPLAUSE) 20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 11:10 a.m.)

22 23 24 25